CBO: 2009 deficit 50% greater than expected

posted at 2:55 pm on May 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Jake Tapper notes that the Congressional Budget Office has some revised numbers on the budget deficit, if by revised we mean completely different than first reported.  The deficit projection has increased 50% since January, and CBO director Douglas Elmendorf blames “enactment of recent legislation.”  Gee, do you think he means Porkulus and the omnibus spending bill?

The director of the Congressional Budget Office today updated his projections for the budget and economic outlook and is now anticipating a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and $1.4 trillion in 2010.

This is up from CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf’s January 2009 projection of a $1.2 trillion deficit this year. In short, the US government is borrowing 50 cents for every dollar it spends.

The new projected deficit is four times the 2008 deficit, which was a record high for its time.

The CBO came to the same conclusion in March, as reported and graphed by the Washington Post at the time:

In the first independent analysis of Obama’s budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama’s policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after costly programs to ease the recession and stabilize the nation’s financial system have ended.

Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9.3 trillion over the next decade — $2.3 trillion more than the president predicted when he unveiled his budget request just one month ago.

ad_icon

Although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting in half the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term, the CBO predicts that deficits under his policies would exceed 4 percent of the overall economy over the next 10 years, a level White House budget director Peter R. Orszag yesterday acknowledged would “not be sustainable.”

The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 — double last year’s level — and threaten the nation’s financial stability.

In March, though, it appears the opinion was simply advisory based on pending budget legislation.  It also depending on Pollyanna-ish growth estimates from both the CBO and the OMB that relied on an annual growth rate in 2009 of 2.2%, as well as continued purchase of American debt at cut-rate terms.  Neither will occur.  The Treasury’s latest auction showed that the government will have to offer higher interest rates to attract bond purchases, making the interest payments higher and driving the need for more debt.  The Q1 figure of 06.1% GDP growth (annualized) will make it almost impossible to meet the 2.2% annual growth needed for the CBO projections, let alone the sunnier OMB predictions.

Now, it’s simply official.  As Orzsag said, we’re on an unsustainable path, thanks to a stimulus that didn’t stimulate and a budget that will make our debt problems much worse in the next decade.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

In totally unrelated news, S&P 500 down 1.48%.

corona on May 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Meh. 50% is close enough for corrupt government work.

I hope The Precedent’s kidneys fail … very slowly.

progressoverpeace on May 11, 2009 at 2:59 PM

When did the White House release its estimate? (Which seems very close to the CBO’s revised estimate)

Skywise on May 11, 2009 at 3:01 PM

I’ll bet this isn’t the last of these ‘revisions’ we see either…we aren’t even done with Obama’s taxes and spending this year.

And, I wonder if these numbers are even taking into account the catastrophic federal tax receipt numbers so far this year.

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 3:01 PM

That chart would make a great tea party T-shirt.

mad saint jack on May 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Yep. It’ll top 2 trillion by the end of the year. easy.

lorien1973 on May 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM

I just stepped in a big pile of… sassy!

JohnJ on May 11, 2009 at 3:03 PM

And the generally ignorant/indifferent electorate remains…ignorant and indifferent.

Obama sure is dreamy, though, right?

PBoilermaker on May 11, 2009 at 3:04 PM

The new projected deficit is four times the 2008 deficit, which was a record high for its time.

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, right?

1/2, 4x, same diff.

Daggett on May 11, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Yep. It’ll top 2 trillion by the end of the year. easy.

lorien1973 on May 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM

No doubt. It would do that all on its own, but in addition, they haven’t nearly finished “legislating” yet.

Slightly OT: I can’t wait to see all the “private” money that comes galloping to the government’s rescue to help in the toxic asset auctions. That should be good for a few laughs.

progressoverpeace on May 11, 2009 at 3:05 PM

Got guns? Got Gold? Got Wheelbarrels?

MB4 on May 11, 2009 at 3:07 PM

I wonder what crisis will hit this week to distract from this news.

PBoilermaker on May 11, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Of COURSE al-Chicago’s deficit will be worse. By tying up all the available credit, Hussein and Tiny Tim will ensure the people of this country will not have any ability to:

1. Become an entrepreneur
2. Buy a new Government Motors or Fiat/UAW automobile
3. Take vacations
4. Own property
5. Go to school
6. Do anything other than worship The Lightworker.

SeniorD on May 11, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, right?

1/2, 4x, same diff.

Daggett on May 11, 2009 at 3:04 PM

“Profit and earnings ratios”, baby!

Things are a bit different in The Precedent’s world. He wants mathematicians with more empathy.

progressoverpeace on May 11, 2009 at 3:10 PM

The Q1 figure of 06.1% GDP growth (annualized) will make it almost impossible to meet the 2.2% annual growth needed for the CBO projections

Huh?

Growth?

Do you mean contraction?

MB4 on May 11, 2009 at 3:10 PM

It’s the Economy, Stupid.

Techie on May 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM

And Obama is predicting 3.5% growth by the end of the year. After a 6.1% drop in the first quarter. Yeah. That’s gonna happen. Retards.

lorien1973 on May 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Quick TOTUS, make another Tea Bagger Joke.

Dr Evil on May 11, 2009 at 3:13 PM

I just stepped in a big pile of… sassy!

JohnJ on May 11, 2009 at 3:03 PM

I’m not even going to pretend I know what that meant, but its hilarious.

+1

bluelightbrigade on May 11, 2009 at 3:13 PM

For Obama, math and speaking honestly are hard to do.

For the MSM, investigative reporting about Obama is hard.

We really need more honest adults who are dedicated to doing their jobs well, and then actually do it.

Loxodonta on May 11, 2009 at 3:14 PM

And Obama is predicting 3.5% growth by the end of the year. After a 6.1% drop in the first quarter. Yeah. That’s gonna happen. Retards.

lorien1973 on May 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Maybe Obama should study up on Lincoln instead of spending so much time studying up on Mussolini.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
- Abraham Lincoln

MB4 on May 11, 2009 at 3:17 PM

MSNBC Headline: Fur Raising Day For First Puppy

LibTired on May 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM

LibTired on May 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM

No. Really?

lorien1973 on May 11, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Actions speak louder than words.

JohnJ on May 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM

LibTired on May 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM

HAHAHAHAHA…or “Breaking: Obama and Joe go to Sneaky Pete’s for a Hotdog”

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM

So how long before no one believes that you can spend your way to prosperity?

tarpon on May 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Barack Obama’s economic plan will work perfectly. I have worked it all out mathematically.

Let me see now, four million times five million is twelve million, and four billion times six billion is thirteen billion, and four trillion times seven trillion is … … oh my! We shall never get to economic recovery and prosperity at that rate! However, the multiplication table doesn’t really apply. Let’s try geography. Iraq borders Pakistan, the center of the Universe was Iraq but now it’s Afghanistan, America has 57 states, Minnesota is in the tropics. No, that’s all wrong too, but geography doesn’t really apply either, I’m certain! Let’s try religion. Jews were behind 9/11 just as Reverend Wright said, Palestinians are victims, Saudi Arabia is our good friend and Islam is a great religion of peace. No, that’s all wrong too! Let’s try fashion. Michelle Obama has a great ass. No, that’s wrong too! Michelle Obama is an ass! Maybe if Obama just starts over and this time he reads the directions then perhaps directly he will be able to direct us all in the right direction.

Cheshire Cat on May 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM

bluelightbrigade on May 11, 2009 at 3:13 PM

It’s an old SNL skit with Phil Hartman.

JohnJ on May 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM

As Orzsag said, we’re on an unsustainable path

Obama may end up being limited government’s best friend. BushBamaBailoutonomics may well end up killing the whole entitlements system.

Rae on May 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Oh, I get it now. When Obama said he was going to cut the deficit in half, he meant cut the deficit TO half… as in…

CBO: 2009 deficit 50% [half] greater than expected

Daggett on May 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Obama: We’re the government. We’re here to lie, decieve, distort, and rob you blind.

capejasmine on May 11, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting in half the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term,

Quoted from the excerpt above, what does this even mean?!

dIb on May 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM

That chart would make a great tea party T-shirt.

mad saint jack on May 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM

July 4th

maverick muse on May 11, 2009 at 3:31 PM

No. Really?

lorien1973 on May 11, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Well, no. But I’m sure they have that one in the can for the day after the next terrorist attack.

LibTired on May 11, 2009 at 3:32 PM

No, that’s all wrong too! Let’s try fashion. Michelle Obama has a great ass. No, that’s wrong too! Michelle Obama is an ass!

Cheshire Cat on May 11, 2009 at 3:26 PM

bWAHAHAhahaha

maverick muse on May 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM

HAHAHAHAHA…Or “Breaking: Obama and Joe go to Sneaky Pete’s for a Hotdog”

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Followed by, “This Article has been Removed By the User”.

LibTired on May 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Actions speak louder than words.

JohnJ on May 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Actions speak louder than words, but not nearly as often.
- Mark Twain

MB4 on May 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM

. BushBamaBailoutonomics may well end up killing the whole entitlements system.

Rae on May 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM

But not until the system kills us first.

maverick muse on May 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Quoted from the excerpt above, what does this even mean?!

dIb on May 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Uhh…um…look, Elvis!

PBoilermaker on May 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Quoted from the excerpt above, what does this even mean?!

dIb on May 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM

It’s pure fantasy, and it starts with a false premise (that Obama inherited a big yearly deficit). Obama inherited a one-time huge deficit because it included TARP, and since Obama voted for TARP, he is partly responsible for what he inherited.

Daggett on May 11, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Here’s some cheerful news on the revenue side.

Change in federal receipts from 2008 to 2009:

feb: -17%
mar: -27%
apr: -38%

More details at the link above. Author attributes it to John Galt.

gh on May 11, 2009 at 3:36 PM

. BushBamaBailoutonomics may well end up killing the whole entitlements system.

Rae on May 11, 2009 at 3:27 PM

But not until the system kills us first.

maverick muse on May 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM

At least there’s nor chicken riddle.
WE came first, not the entitlements.

maverick muse on May 11, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Time to let loose another flu virus. Isn’t news like this supposed to come on a Friday afternoon?

scalleywag on May 11, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Khrushchev had it wrong when he said that we would bury you. You will bury yourselves and at a very rapid pace.

PootyPoot on May 11, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Isn’t news like this supposed to come on a Friday afternoon?

scalleywag on May 11, 2009 at 3:43 PM

It contains numbers, so it’s over most voters heads…it’s safe.

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM

gh on May 11, 2009 at 3:36 PM

April was also the month where Obama’s phony “tax cut” kicked in – where withholding tables were manipulated to take out less from “workers” paychecks, so couldn’t that also be reflected in the huge slump in declining revenue?

Buy Danish on May 11, 2009 at 3:50 PM

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM

50 cents on the dollar…is that bad?

/

scalleywag on May 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Buy Danish on May 11, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Definitely accounts for some of it…how much, I’m not sure…but I doubt even taking it into account reverses the trend….

Oh, and thanks for the reminder about that faux tax-cut that’s looming out there….hahahahaha, a huge number of people are going to get skinned alive next April 15th. Especially the enormous numbers who count on tax cuts every year to make essential purchases.

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 4:05 PM

American Thinker: Does the Deficit Matter?

For fiscal 2009, federal spending of about 3.5 trillion will be supported 54% by collected tax revenues, and the rest (near half) by debt. That has never happened before in this country’s history — neither the size of the deficit (the 2009 deficit is 4 times as large as 2008′s prior record deficit of 450 billion, and the 2010 deficit is 3 times as large as that of 2008) nor the record share of the deficit ( near 50%) that needs to be financed by debt.

What do you call a country whose government is half supported by debt, much of it foreign? Probably one that the International Monetary Fund would consider a basket case that needed to be put on an expenditure diet. The words “banana republic” and “Argentina” come to mind.

Thanks, Obama!

Loxodonta on May 11, 2009 at 4:06 PM

It’s pure fantasy, and it starts with a false premise (that Obama inherited a big yearly deficit). Obama inherited a one-time huge deficit because it included TARP, and since Obama voted for TARP, he is partly responsible for what he inherited.

It’s cute how the Obama zealots and the media (but I repeat myself) buy that “inherited” line. They completely ignore his four years in the Senate and his YAY! vote on TARP.

Due to self-preservation, the Craven Criminals in CONgress have abdicated their responsibilities and handed the purse strings to Treasury and The Fed®, so the “$700 Billion” in Banksta Bailouts is also a bald-faced lie. It’s more like $10 – $12 Trillion that has been thrown at the Bankstas.

maverick muse on May 11, 2009 at 3:36 PM

There won’t be a square to spare for the Nanny State. What little they will have left will have to pay for what’s actually Constitutionally mandated, like national defense.

The reason we’re being lied to over “green shoots,” bogus “stress tests” and 8.9% unemployment (“It could have been worse!” and it is) is because this government is as insolvent as the banks they’re trying to prop up. It’s one massive Ponzi Scheme and it’s all going to come crashing down.

Rae on May 11, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Quoted from the excerpt above, what does this even mean?!
dIb on May 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM

In Obamaese; it means they get to blame all their spending through 2012 on the evil Bushites.

chemman on May 11, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Shrug, baby shrug.

Only way to kill the cancer is to starve it.

Mew

acat on May 11, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Obama: Making all Americans slaves…one way or another.

bluelightbrigade on May 11, 2009 at 4:13 PM

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Yep, millions and millions of taxpayers are in for a rude awakening next April.

Buy Danish on May 11, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Now, see, ya’ll just don’t know how to read the charts. Bush was still president at the start of 2009, so everything in ’09 that is bad is attributed to him. Notice that theGreatOne reduces the deficit for each of his 4 years of his term, then the numbers turn around. This can only mean that we MUST give him a second term so he can work his magic for 4 more years.

gregbert on May 11, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Don’t worry, according to the Obama admin GDP growth will be 3.5% year end!

rob verdi on May 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM

come on now, didn’t reagan prove that deficits don’t matter?

sesquipedalian on May 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM

sesquipedalian on May 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM

It’s the scale of the deficit, isn’t it…a $1 deficit is not the same as a $1 trillion deficit…most people can figure that kind of thing out.

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 4:22 PM

come on now, didn’t reagan prove that deficits don’t matter?

sesquipedalian on May 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM

So long as deficits remain very small portions of GDP, public indebtedness can be stabilizing (you don’t go and harm a country who’s government you are invested in).
When you go bat-$#!+ insane with spending, though, real consequences set in. When the interest on you debt starts becoming a significant fraction of your budget, then you have problems.

Count to 10 on May 11, 2009 at 4:38 PM

sesquipedalian on May 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM

As far as government spending goes (with or without it being deficit spending) the only area that has produced any real returns is defense – which Reagan spent a lot on. The brain-dead liberals spend on everything but defense. But they still love to bring up the benefits of government spending (the internet, highways, …) that were defense projects.

You people are despicable, lying scum. And really, really, really stupid.

progressoverpeace on May 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM

The president in training is 4 times the president W was…..well, spending wise at least.

50% increase since January…..yes, Blame Obama.

Fighton03 on May 11, 2009 at 4:48 PM

So when do Obama and the Congress hang out the “For Sale” sign?

GarandFan on May 11, 2009 at 4:49 PM

So when do Obama and the Congress hang out the “For Sale” sign?

GarandFan on May 11, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Never. They’re going to keep going until the repo-man comes.

progressoverpeace on May 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM

progressoverpeace on May 11, 2009 at 4:44 PM

True…and I will add that the biggest difference was how the deficits came about under Reagan…besides defense (obviously useful in taking down the Soviet Union, leading to the Peace Dividend of the Clinton years) was tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Accumulating a relatively minor deficit to stimulate the private sector is a *real* investment that brings greater returns over the long run…it is exactly what happened.

Obama’s porkulus does none of that…just transfers money from the private sector to the public sector (and to Democrat cronies).

And yes, this was just a troll dropping…they poop it out in the comments and run.

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Well said.

progressoverpeace on May 11, 2009 at 4:53 PM

So long as deficits remain very small portions of GDP

in 1945, the deficit was 125% of the US GDP. and look at the horror that ensued.

perspective, people.

the only area that has produced any real returns is defense

umm, no.

Defense Spending Boosts the Economy? Data Says, Not Usually

sesquipedalian on May 11, 2009 at 4:57 PM

And Obama is predicting 3.5% growth by the end of the year. After a 6.1% drop in the first quarter. Yeah. That’s gonna happen. Retards.

lorien1973 on May 11, 2009 at 3:12 PM

It’s like the Special Olympics!

Joe Caps on May 11, 2009 at 5:00 PM

the deficit debt was 125% of the US GDP

sesquipedalian on May 11, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Make that down 2.15%.

corona on May 11, 2009 at 5:03 PM

MSNBC Headline: Fur Raising Day For First Puppy

LibTired on May 11, 2009 at 3:20 PM

No no no…wrong…here is the headline:

Obama thanks Heels ‘for salvaging my bracket’

Joe Caps on May 11, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Although Obama would come close to meeting his goal of cutting in half the deficit he inherited by the end of his first term,

Quoted from the excerpt above, what does this even mean?!

dIb on May 11, 2009 at 3:30 PM

That jumped off the page at me too. I was going to comment on it, going as far as cutting and pasting it down to the comments. But then, when I tried to wrap my head around it, it felt like it was about to explode so I gave up.

Is the 2009 budget Obama’s or Bush’s. How can it be both? Very confused.

Joe Caps on May 11, 2009 at 5:08 PM

in 1945, the deficit was 125% of the US GDP. and look at the horror that ensued.

perspective, people.

In 1945, the only standing industrial economy was the US. We rebuilt the world. Get a brain.

the only area that has produced any real returns is defense

umm, no.

Defense Spending Boosts the Economy? Data Says, Not Usually

sesquipedalian on May 11, 2009 at 4:57 PM

“has real returns” is what I said, and it is true. Learn to read, numbnuts.

progressoverpeace on May 11, 2009 at 5:15 PM

in 1945, the deficit was 125% of the US GDP. and look at the horror that ensued.

perspective, people.

This isn’t 1945, of course…the US was stepping into a world-wide post war recovery and expansion unprecedented in history, which allowed massive expansion of industry, which had already been stimulated by war production and was ready to immediately capitalize on free trade with rebuilding economies in western europe and asia.

Today, no such expansion is on the horizon…and we are staring at enormous, economy killing spending requirements from medicare and social security that have no equivalent in the years following WWII…different world…different consequences for this huge chuck of the private sector that has been flushed down the toilet.

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Think of the nonproductive coal mines that Post-WWII Britain was stuck with: too expensive to keep on subsidizing, but politically impossible to close. Our equivalents will be outfits like Government Motors and Fannie and Freddie, but on a much greater scale.

KentAllard on May 11, 2009 at 5:18 PM

the deficit debt was 125% of the US GDP

sesquipedalian on May 11, 2009 at 5:01 PM

The debt, when you factor in everything the government owes, is about 5-6 times GDP at the moment. I’m not sure what your point is.

lorien1973 on May 11, 2009 at 5:25 PM

AUINSC on May 11, 2009 at 3:48 PM

50 cents on the dollar…is that bad?

Actually you’d be getting twice the dollar’s worth nowadays.

SeniorD on May 11, 2009 at 5:30 PM

come on now, didn’t reagan prove that deficits don’t matter?

sesquipedalian on May 11, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Reagan only proved that Deficits don’t matter provided if:
A) you have fantastic economic growth to make up for it (which he did, and that is a luxury we do not have at the moment!).
B) They don’t make up too great a portion of the Economy (which they didn’t, and it’s a mistake we’re making)!).
C) It’s a politically acceptable reason (The Carter fiasco was still fresh in everyone’s mind. Sure, the Bush fiasco is still here, but it pales in comparison to what’s happening now with 1.8 trillion dollars of deficit. That and Bush a)had the Iraq War to justify it and b) the deficits were going the right direction: down).

Of course, you’re probably the %25 of Americans that would vote for Obama again. I’d like to let the facts speak for themselves, and so far, they don’t speak highly of our dear leader.

Chaz706 on May 11, 2009 at 5:53 PM

lorien1973 on May 11, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Good point.

progressoverpeace on May 11, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Still confused how Obama inherited Obama’s 2009 budget.

Do we have a watchdog media or WHAT????!!!??!!!

For historical reference, the last year of a republican controlled congress, the deficit was 127 billion dollars.

jukin on May 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM

I am so tired of hearing how Obama inherited this deficit, he did not. He supported it as a Senator and signed the budget as President. These fools can try to blame Bush, but sooner or later they have to assume responsibility for their own policy.

Terrye on May 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM

This Screenshot of the topic I caught seems so appropriate.

BKennedy on May 11, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Obama inherited the deficit from Nancy Pelousy who was waterboarded by Darth Cheney and thus not in control of her senses. So you see, it’s still Booosh’s fault.

eaglewingz08 on May 11, 2009 at 6:03 PM

So when do Obama and the Congress hang out the “For Sale” sign?

GarandFan on May 11, 2009 at 4:49 PM

My husband said he’ll probably put Alaska on eBay and let the China and Russian have a bidding war, thereby eliminating two of his problems!

Rae on May 11, 2009 at 7:24 PM

The dems with Obama at their head are the party of Bernie Madoff; SCAM, SCAM, SCAM, SCAM!

Pardonme on May 11, 2009 at 10:33 PM

I agree with the above assessment of President Reagan on this matter.

Personally, I have no problem with government operating in debt. That is common for businesses and individuals and has been for at least a couple thousand years. The Feds still owed a few million towards the Civil War by the time World War I came around and it didn’t seem to hurt anything. But, it does reach a point where owing too much is indeed harmful.

Sooner or later (probably sooner) the PTB will start going on and on about balancing the budget, raising taxes and the like because ‘SOMETHING MUST BE DONE ABOUT THIS OUT OF CONTROL DEFICIT!!!’ Of course, it will be the same guys that legislated/supported the same spending caused it in the first place.

In the meantime, I can’t believe that hyperinflation won’t result as the Feds continue to print money based on nothing but their own say-so that they’re good for it.

Oh, and there’s also what must be an ever-increasing trade deficit as well.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 12, 2009 at 3:49 AM

Now, it’s simply official. As Orzsag said, we’re on an unsustainable path, thanks to a stimulus that didn’t stimulate and a budget that will make our debt problems much worse in the next decade.

It’s kind of sad that people forget the $150,000,000,000 stimulus of 2008. Remember the “stimulus checks”? That redistribution of wealth that was supposed to take from the rich and give the money to the poor and middle class so they could run out and spend it and fix our economy instantly… It didn’t work either (despite Bush and McCain cheerleading it).

popularpeoplesfront on May 12, 2009 at 7:45 AM

God help this nation.

With each passing day of the Obama presidency I find myself wondering more and more if the United States will even exist in another 10 years. Will it still be called the “United States” but is actually just a shadow of what the Founders built for us? Are we already there.

Seriously, it’s so damn depressing each day to sit here and watch your nation wither before your eyes. I vote, I served my country, I donate to conservative organizations, I attended a Tea Party, I write my Congressmen from time to time…… but my nation is being spent into oblivion anyways and there’s not a damn thing I can do to stop it.

It’s infuriating.

Yakko77 on May 12, 2009 at 10:31 AM

As Orzsag said, we’re on an unsustainable path, thanks to a stimulus that didn’t stimulate and a budget that will make our debt problems much worse in the next decade.

Yehaw. I can’t wait…well…yes, I can.

Aronne on May 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM

There is no one minding the store at The Fed®. 9 TRILLION has gone missing.

This video is a must watch for anyone who wants to understand just how “effective” the Fed is at safeguarding taxpayer money. Apparently nobody at the Federal Reserve has any clue where the trillions of dollars that have come from the Fed’s expanded balance sheet have gone. Additionally, nobody there seems to have any idea what the losses on the Fed’s $2 trillion portfolio really are.

As for the pittance of $9 trillion in Fed off-balance sheet transactions over the past 8 months, well, yeah, that’s also somewhere out there… Just don’t ask the Federal Reserve where.

A vast majority of House Democrats don’t want to Audit the Fed, and 47 House Republicans don’t either. Why do they hate transparency, and the American taxpayer?

Rae on May 12, 2009 at 1:09 PM

in 1945, the deficit was 125% of the US GDP. and look at the horror that ensued.

perspective, people.

Were entitlements imploding in 1945?

Chuck Schick on May 12, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2